I'd argue that most decisions are based on personal needs as the deciding factor. Certainly in this election! Very true! I think you've hit the nail on the head with this. It's been the biggest problem with government since the 80s. Who? Me because I said I'd put my needs first or the original poster for hating Obama for what seems suspiciously likely to be his race? You lost me here. I'm fairly old so I don't know much about myspace except that my nieces like it. Is it considered liberal? I thought it was a site for kids.
IMAO: Why Question It? "Some people say Obama isnât a Patriot. I say he is. Because heâs going to win every match-up this year except for the one at the end."
The one example given in the tape (we can't know what was edited out in this chop suey) was economic redistribution among school systems. Which seems reasonable. He's speaking as a constitutional law professor. "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." -- Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
You are moronic and perhaps obsessed with seeing your own work up in pixels, eh? Getting paid by the word from MoveOn.org maybe? The government was tiny in those days. Progressive taxation did not equate to wealth redistribution.
Really. So when Thomas Jefferson wrote that the government should pay farmers to take in the poor, from tax money, that wasn't wealth redistribution. Yes, it was. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that tax money should be used so that the poor could receive a good education, that wasn't wealth redistribution. Yes, it was. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that the country could become a paradise on the taxes of the rich alone that wasn't wealth redistribution. Yes, it was. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that the fairest tax system should be a graduated one, where the poor pay little or nothing and tax rates rise geometrically with income that wasn't wealth redistribution. Yes it was.
http://dmiessler.com/blog/if-this-g...-his-integrity-in-the-minds-of-his-supporters "When you reach a certain level of comfort, thereâs nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." - John McCain
You are comparing a consumption tax to an income tax. Jefferson's comments supported a consumption tax. His comments about the rich paying for it were hardly an endorsement of Obama/Chavez style socialism. The early tax system was designed to encourage domestic industry by taxing imports, and it worked brilliantly until undermined by the introduction of the income tax and later, free trade. All this quoting out of context is getting tiresome. The only people you fool don't even know who Thomas Jefferson was.
Your logic, or complete lack thereof: 1) I'm against socialism 2) The gov't sends me a "stimulus" check, which I don't agree with per se, but it's just as easily a refund of all the taxes I've paid over the years. 3) If I don't refuse the stimulus (tax rebate?) check, I'm a socialist. Your math and logic skills should serve you much better in politics than in trading.
Nothing is out of context, if you wish I can supply the text to the original letters. As for your statement that he wasn't referring to income taxes because they weren't introduced yet, he specifically wrote about uniformity of application of taxes and specifically mentioned income tax when he wrote about liquor taxes in his letter to Samuel Smith. You, of course, throwing your featherweight opinion around like it's a sumo wrestler, know to what I'm referring, of course.